This piece smells like link bait lacking substantial content. I mean, how is the paragraph below a valid description of cloaking?

Cloaking: Cloaking is a black hat search engine optimization technique in which the content presented to the search engine spider is different from that presented to the user’s browser. This is done by delivering content based on the IP address or the User-Agent HTTP header of the user requesting the page. When a user is identified as a search engine spider, a server-side script delivers a different version of the web page, one that contains content not present on the visible page. The purpose of cloaking is to deceive search engines so they display the page when it would not otherwise be displayed.

Who on earth actually cloaks based on UA strings? Also, the purpose of cloaking is to show search engines clean and therefore indexable content targeting keywords that match the sales pitch the user coming from a SERP gets faced with.

The other "sins" aren't put any better, IMO.

I am also not a fan of this one. It's okay, but it's the same old same old we see a lot. Sure, they get props for the cute analogy, but otherwise, nothing new here.

There's nothing new, but I thought it was a cute way to remind people of some things to avoid, including cloaking, which I thought was generally well defined.

Some pretty big companies cloak using UA.

That might be the reason why competitors appear on search result when someone is searching for the name of  the company.